Search

During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 24 billion pieces of surgical mask waste (WM) were generated in the EU region, with an acute shortage of their management and recycling. Pyrolysis and gasification are among the most promising treatments that were proposed to dispose of WMs and convert them into pyrolysis oil and hydrogen-rich syngas. This work aimed to investigate the techno-economic analysis (TEA) of both treatments in order to assess the feasibility of scaling up. The TEA was carried out using a discounted cash flow model and its data were collected from practical experiments conducted using a fluidised bed pyrolysis reactor and bubbling fluidised bed gasifier system with a capacity of 0.2 kg/h and 1 kg/h, respectively, then upscaling to one tonne/h. The technological evaluation was made based on the optimal conditions that could produce the maximum amount of pyrolysis oil (42.3%) and hydrogen-rich syngas (89.7%). These treatments were also compared to the incineration of WMs as a commercial solution. The discounted payback, simple payback, net present value (NPV), production cost, and internal rate of return (IRR) were the main indicators used in the economic feasibility analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed using SimLab software with the help of Monte Carlo simulations. The results showed that the production cost of the main variables was estimated at 45.4 EUR/t (gate fee), 71.7 EUR/MWh (electricity), 30.5 EUR/MWh (heat), 356 EUR/t (oil), 221 EUR/t (gaseous), 237 EUR/t (char), and 257 EUR/t (syngas). Meanwhile, the IRR results showed that gasification (12.51%) and incineration (7.56%) have better economic performance, while pyrolysis can produce less revenue (1.73%). Based on the TEA results, it is highly recommended to use the gasification process to treat WMs, yielding higher revenue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Design of an integrated catalytic deoxygenation and hydrothermal gasification was performed. • Using experimental data, a high-fidelity process model was created with Aspen Plus. • Exergy analysis results showed that the deoxygenation reactor's exergy efficiencies are superior. • Equipment and raw material costs have superior effect influences on economic viability. Several technologies have been developed to produce sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), the hydroprocessing of esters and fatty acids (HEFA) representing one of the most mature pathways. Although HEFA has been widely adopted by industry, this pathway is mainly reliant on the hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) reaction, which requires large amounts and high pressures of hydrogen gas that reduces the cost-effectiveness of the process. In this study, the economic, environmental, and exergy analyses of two alternative scenarios for the catalytic production of SAF were considered. In both scenarios, SAF is produced through the catalytic deoxygenation of tall oil fatty acid (TOFA) via decarboxylation/decarbonylation (deCO x) – an approach requiring smaller amounts and lower pressures of hydrogen, feedstocks of lower purity and cost, and simpler supported metal catalysts relative to HDO. The material and energy balance was calculated using Aspen Plus process simulation software. Scenario 1 comprises a plant in which the catalytic deoxygenation of TOFA via deCO x is performed using hydrogen gas obtained commercially, while scenario 2 integrates catalytic deoxygenation with a plant that produces hydrogen gas via hydrothermal gasification. The study revealed that both scenarios were economically feasible relative to other pathways for SAF production, with the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of scenario 2 (USD$ 0.39/L) being lower than that of scenario 1 (USD$ 0.62/L). In addition to being the most economically viable, scenario 2 was also found to be preferable from an environmental standpoint since it also shows a lower global warming potential (GWP). Discounted cash flow analysis (DCFA) was used to determine other economic indicators such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), net rate of return (NRR) and payback period (PBP), which was estimated to be approximately 3 years for both scenarios. Finally, sensitivity analysis confirms that the raw materials and equipment purchase costs have the greatest impact on the MFSP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]